Review of Fiscal Sociology and the Theory of Public Finance. By

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Review of Fiscal Sociology and the Theory of Public Finance. By THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS 12, NO. 1 (2009): 88–94 FISCAL SOCIOLOGY AND THE THEORY OF PUBLIC FINANCE. BY RICHARD E. WAGNER. CHELTENHAM, U.K.: EDWARD ELGAR, 2007. conomic theories of the state have traditionally been divided into two camps under the headings of public finance and public choice (cf. EBuchanan and Musgrave 1999). The public finance approach identi- fies the state with an omniscient social planner. Armed with the tools of microeconomic analysis and a knowledge of market conditions both actual and possible, the state intervenes fiscally (with taxation and subsidies) or with regulation to correct market failures or maximize tax revenues. The public choice approach, by contrast, identifies the state as an organization comprised of self-interested actors whose interventions are predicated on their own cost-benefit calculations. This latter perspective owes much to Austrian economics. Gordon Tullock, one of its pioneers, was inspired to ana- lyze bureaucracy with the tools of economics after reading Mises’s Human Action. The deployment of means in the pursuit of ends constitutes all human activity, in government as well as markets. Richard Wagner’s Fiscal Sociology and the Theory of Public Finance pushes the Austrian approach to social science further than previous economic analyses of the state. Subtitled “An Exploratory Essay,” it reads more like a manifesto for a budding research program than an exposition of particular propositions. Over the course of eight chapters, Wagner outlines the con- tours of a theory of state activity. The orientation is self-consciously Men- gerian (p. 41), but also draws on the broadly continental approach to public finance from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (e.g., Wick- sell, De Viti de Marco), as contrasted with the dominant British approach (e.g., Edgeworth, Pigou) that dominates mainstream public finance. And of course, though explicitly titled as a work in public finance, Wagner remains closer to the Virginia school of public choice that he helped develop and propagate. 88 BOOK REVIEWS 89 The most striking and innovative aspect of the book—and the one most challenging to Austrians and libertarians alike—is the conceptualization of the state as a social space rather than an organization. That is, the state, like the market, is an arena in which individuals pursue their own purposes. Rejecting the dominant strand in both public finance and public choice that treats the state as intervening in a preexisting market order, Wagner paints the picture of a “two-forum societal architecture” (chap. 2) in which state and market interpenetrate one another. Market and fiscal phenomena alike find their origins in human nature. I wish to explore critically how these claims add up and how well they square with Austrian economics and liber- tarianism. Wagner distinguishes between private property and public property, or commons. He takes a narrow view of private property, one that concerns only the sphere in which the individual is truly autonomous. As such, it cannot be all-encompassing in any society. My right to trade or not trade may be pri- vate, but your right to offer me a trade relies on some common medium by which you can contact me. Furthermore, effective (rather than merely nor- mative) property claims depend on the forbearance of others; as such, “pri- vate property can only operate within a medium of common property” (p. 43). Recognizing the impossibility of a purely private social order does not entail any logical or temporal priority of public property. Rather, the two are coeval, corresponding to two fundamental human desires for autonomy and solidarity (pp. 41–46). Autonomy denotes the pursuit of ends by economiz- ing on the use of physical things. Solidarity denotes the pursuit of ends in which other people and relationships with them are the objects of econo- mizing activity. In dubbing this impulse “solidarity,” Wagner bestows no romantic veneer: it includes desires to compete with others, meddle in their affairs, and even coerce them for one’s own ends. In other words, in contrast to standard economic models, individuals take an active interest in one another. Actions motivated by solidarity always involve some sort of com- mons. Interest in the actions and beliefs of others necessarily forecloses complete autonomy in the disposal of means over ends. This dichotomy between public and private radically diverges from the traditional theory of public goods, and in a thoroughly Austrian direction. Economists usually predicate public goods arguments on technological con- siderations such as non-rivalry and non-excludability. From their lofty, hypo- thetical perch, they surmise that in the absence of such difficulties individ- uals would be willing to pay for such services, thus justifying interventions to correct market failures. Wagner, by contrast, defines the commons in a purely subjectivist manner. Public economics begins with the demonstrated preferences of individuals concerning their relationships with others. Public 90 THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS 12, NO. 1 (2009) character is a “fact of the social sciences” (Hayek 1943) determined not by some objective characteristic of a good or service but in the way individuals treat it. A smoke stack polluting my neighbor’s land is not a matter of pub- lic economics until my neighbor raises a complaint. Conversely, a technolog- ically excludable and rival good is the subject of public economics whenever its provision is funded by coercive means (p. 25). From this basic distinction Wagner goes on to depict what he calls a “two-forum societal architecture” (chap. 3), in which the market and the state are two interconnected arenas of activity. Market decisions, though they reach across the commons, are governed by freedom of contract and free entry. Their outcomes thus correspond to autonomous action. State decisions instead occur within the commons. “State” is then treated as a universal feature of social order, an arena in which particular governments of various forms can come and go (pp. 49–50). Just as in the market, individu- als pursue their own, frequently contradictory ends in the commons. A het- erogeneous array of organizational enterprises, from legislatures to bureau- cracies, thus inhabits this space. On the surface, this vision of society appears fundamentally at odds with basic features of libertarianism, especially the anarchist variety. If the state is an arena which different organizations inhabit, does it even make sense to complain about a monopoly of coercion? Even more troubling is the identifi- cation of the state as a universal feature of society rooted in human nature. Wagner’s definitions seem to trap us between one of two poles: either the world is inherently and universally anarchic, or anarchy is simply a theoreti- cal impossibility. Either way, he seems to be categorically denying the tradi- tional Weberian definition of the state. Such concerns are not baseless, and I am not arguing that economists should jettison their traditional approach to the state. A serious quibble with Wagner’s definitions is the violence they do to accepted usage of terms such as “state.” It is unclear why terms such as “public” or “commons” would not have sufficed to describe the arena in which solidarity plays out. Enterprises that would bear the mantle of the “state” certainly occupy the commons, but not exclusively. Wagner notes that activity within markets includes pub- lic elements (p. 17). He also recognizes that governmental organizations tend toward hierarchical relationships (pp. 158–59). From both fronts, then, an identification of the state with the commons is problematic. A better rendering of the traditional sense of “state” in his system might be a network of hierarchically organized enterprises that dominates the legal stewardship of the commons. By dominion, I mean neither that the state controls all of the commons, nor that such control is absolute. Rather, it entails that freedom of entry into legal adjudication within the commons is effectively curtailed. Working with this definition, Wagner’s framework of a two-forum BOOK REVIEWS 91 societal architecture thus clarifies the significance of private adjudication. In a society with a state, private adjudication may exist for contractual rela- tions without nullifying our common sense notion that the state has a monopoly of coercion. The key is the exercise of legal dominion within the commons, where contractual relations are absent but individuals still inter- act. For example, criminal activity falls strictly within the commons: the criminal takes an interest in his victim that does not respect the victim’s sphere of autonomy. The state does claim a monopoly over adjudicating such disputes, while private courts that deal with pre-existing contractual relations—which take the individual’s sphere of autonomy for granted—are allowed to persist. It should be emphasized that these disputes are more terminological than substantive. Wagner’s simplified market-state dichotomy does the job it was intended for, which is to analyze fiscal phenomena (p. 46). In terms of monetized activities, a dichotomy between contractual-private and coer- cive-public performs admirably. He eviscerates any notion that state budg- ets are centrally planned in response to market outcomes. Rather than modeling individuals as simply self-interested, rational choosers, Wagner again takes a thoroughly Austrian tack and includes entre- preneurship in his account of agency. Entrepreneurship is the part of action that deals with man’s attempts to forecast the future and project plans into it that advance his purposes. It is not an institutional reality but a universal feature of action, and as such applies in both the market and the public square. With this full-blooded praxeology in hand, Wagner depicts social order as an ecology of interconnected plans that originate from the market square and the public square alike (chaps. 4–5).
Recommended publications
  • DOI Number: 10.30520/Tjsosci.655840 SOCIO
    Year:4, Volume:4, Number:7 / 2020 DOI Number: 10.30520/tjsosci.655840 SOCIO-ECONOMIC VARIABLES AND TAX COMPLIANCE IN THE SCOPE OF FISCAL SOCIOLOGY: A RESEARCH ON THE EUROPEAN UNION AND OECD* Rana DAYIOĞLU ERUL** ABSTRACT Fiscal sociology investigates financial events from a sociological point of view and explores the effects of tax and spending policies on society and also the role and influence of the elements that constitute society in defining these policies. As the tax system and policies of each country reflect the characteristics of the country's social, political, cultural and economic structure, tax systems differ according to the characteristics of the structure of the society. Tax systems that are in line with the social structure ensure that tax compliance is achieved at a high level. From this point of view, aim of the study is defined as investigating the level of interaction of the structural elements with tax compliance. In this respect, tax compliance and socio-economic variables that affect the structure of the society are included in the study and they are analyzed using panel data analysis covering the 2008-2016 time period by making comparisons between the European Union and OECD countries. As a result of the analysis, the main point in increasing tax compliance is that the tax policies are adopted by the society, for this reason it is concluded that implementations that reflect the society need to be taken as a basis while making the regulations on the tax system. Key Words: Fiscal sociology, tax compliance, panel data analysis, socio-economic variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Redistribution & the New Fiscal Sociology: Race and The
    Redistribution & the New Fiscal Sociology: Race and the Progressivity of State and Local Taxes Rourke O’Brien, Harvard University1 Abstract: States redistribute wealth through two mechanisms: spending and taxation. Yet, efforts to delineate the determinants of redistribution often focus exclusively on social spending. This article aims to explore how one important determinant of redistributive social spending—racial composition—influences preferences for and the structure of tax systems. First, using fixed- effects regression analyses and unique data on state and local tax systems, we demonstrate that changes in racial composition are associated with changes in the progressivity of state and local tax systems. Specifically, between 1995 and 2007, an increase in the percentage of Latinos in a state is associated with more regressive state and local tax systems as well as higher tax burdens on the poor. Second, using evidence from a nationally representative survey experiment, we find that individual preferences for taxation are actively shaped by the changing racial composition of the community. Finally, we show that in-group preference—or feeling “solidarity” with neighbors—is a key mechanism through which racial threat shapes preferences for taxation. By providing empirical evidence that racial composition drives preferences for taxation at the individual level as well as the structure of tax systems at the state and local levels, this paper serves as an important contribution to our understanding of welfare state policy and the determinants of redistribution as well as the broader project of the new fiscal sociology. 1 Direct all correspondence to Rourke O’Brien, Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • The Classics in Economic Sociology
    I The Classics in Economic Sociology There exists a rich and colorful tradition of economic sociology, which roughly began around the turn of the twentieth century and continues till today. This tradition has generated a number of helpful concepts and ideas as well as interesting research results, which this and the following chapter seek to briefly present and set in perspective. Economic soci- ology has peaked twice since its birth: in 1890–1920, with the founders of sociology (who were all interested in and wrote on the economy), and today, from the early 1980s and onward. (For the history of economic sociology, see Swedberg 1987, 1997; Gislain and Steiner 1995). A small number of important works in economic sociology—by economists as well as sociologists—was produced during the time between these two periods, from 1920 to the mid-1980s. The main thesis of this chapter, and of this book as a whole, is as follows: in order to produce a powerful economic sociology we have to combine the analysis of economic interests with an analysis of social relations. From this perspective, institutions can be understood as dis- tinct configurations of interests and social relations, which are typically of such importance that they are enforced by law. Many of the classic works in economic sociology, as I shall also try to show, hold a similar view of the need to use the concept of interest in analyzing the economy. Since my suggestion about the need to combine interests and social relations deviates from the existing paradigm in economic sociology, a few words will be said in the next section about the concept of interest as it has been used in social theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Mind, Society, and Fiscal Sociology Richard E. Wagner Department Of
    States and the Crafting of Souls: Mind, Society, and Fiscal Sociology Richard E. Wagner Department of Economics, 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax, VA 22030 USA [email protected] http://mason.gmu.edu/~rwagner Abstract For the most part, the theory of public finance follows economic theory in taking individual preferences as given. The resulting analytical agenda revolves around the ability of different fiscal institutions to reflect and aggregate those preferences into collective outcomes. This paper explores the possibility that to some extent fiscal institutions can influence and shape what are commonly referred to as preferences. Statecraft thus becomes necessarily a branch of soulcraft, in that the state is inescapably involved in shaping preferences through its impact on the moral imagination, and not just in reflecting or representing them. This paper first explores some general conceptual issues and then examines some particular illustrations. Keywords: endogenous preferences, fiscal institutions, constitutional economics, public enterprise States and the Crafting of Souls: Mind, Society, and Fiscal Sociology For the most part, the theory of public finance follows economic theory in taking individual preferences as given. The resulting analytical agenda revolves around the ability of different fiscal institutions to reflect and aggregate those preferences into collective outcomes. This paper explores the possibility that to some extent fiscal institutions, and the fiscal practice that those institutions generate, can influence and shape what are commonly referred to as preferences. In standard public finance, the activities of the state simply represent offerings by alternative vendors to those that exist in private markets. Hence, shoppers buy some things from public goods stores and other things from private goods stores.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Sociology in Israel
    ASA SECTION NEWSLETTER VOLUME XY, ISSUE 2, SPRING 2016 ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY IN ISRAEL Circuits of Global and Local Knowledge By: Oleg Komlik Economic sociology in Israel is thriving. After years of gradual disciplinary evolution and scholarly elaboration, Israeli economic sociology has become soundly estab- lished. This essay aims to explain the emergence of this field of research and to profile the contemporary eco- nomic sociology in Israel. Our point of departure lies in the contention that Israeli economic sociology - as an umbrella term for the variety of socio-political studies of economic organizations, in- stitutions and processes – has been constituting from the 1980s onward in the spirit of two concurrently unfolding academic trends: on the global level, the stimulating re- vival and remarkable spring of economic sociology in the US and Europe, and on the local level, the growing influ- ence of critical sociological approaches on Israeli sociol- ogy as a whole. Decades after the establishment-oriented structural-functionalist sociology ceded the economy as a topic of inquiry to economics and produced papers echoing the dominant ideology and government poli- cies, researchers associated with different streams of critical sociology, especially interested in elites, power and political economy of labor, have begun to problematize notions of economic phenomena which for years were conceptually simplified and (un)intentionally omitted. Finally, the institutionalization of econom- ic sociology was intensified by the transformative and detrimental consequences of the Neoliberal conquest of the Israeli society and polity during the 1990s (e.g. Shafir and Peled 2002; Shalev 1998). In 1992, after returning from Columbia University where he obtained his PhD, Ilan Talmud pioneered the first courses in ‘new economic sociology’ in Israel - “Social capital” and “State and entrepreneurship” (see also Talmud 1992, 1994; Burt and Talmud 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Taxes and Fiscal Sociology Isaac William Martin and Monica Prasad
    Taxes and Fiscal Sociology Isaac William Martin and Monica Prasad 2014 Archived prepublication draft Posted with permission from the Annual Review of Sociology, Volume 40, copyright by Annual Reviews, http://www.annualreviews.org. When citing this paper, please cite to the final version of record: Martin IW, Prasad M. 2014. Taxes and fiscal sociology. Annu. Rev. Soc. 40: 331-345. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043229 The final version of record may be retrieved from this URL: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/eprint/yYhz4GgQvV8WzZpkuhbH/full/10.1146/annurev- soc-071913-043229 INTRODUCTION Taxation is hardly a peripheral subject in sociology. Our canonical texts describe taxation as one of the most important factors that can foster or impede capitalist economic development and the reproduction of class inequality (Marx & Engels 2012 [1848], Weber 1978). Sociologists today regularly assign our students nineteenth-century texts that recommend progressive taxation as a means of “revolutionizing the mode of production” (Marx & Engels 2012 [1848], p. 60) or ameliorating the “abnormal” division of labor (Durkheim 1984 [1893], p. 310). Yet few of us train our students to follow these leads. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fields of development studies and stratification research ignored taxation altogether as they developed in twentieth-century American sociology (cf. Grusky 2008). This neglect not only severed sociology from some of its theoretical traditions, it also marginalized sociological discourse about poverty and inequality by cutting it off from the most salient policy debates about these issues in our time. Our goal in this review is to introduce sociologists to important contributions of the recent empirical literature on taxation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Sociology of Capitalism
    1 THE ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY OF CAPITALISM: AN INTRODUCTION AND AGENDA by Richard Swedberg Cornell University [email protected] revised version July 27, 2003 2 Capitalism is the dominant economic system in today’s world, and there appears to be no alternatives in sight.1 Socialism, its main competitor, has been weakened immeasurably by the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Where socialism still prevails, such as in the People’s Republic of China, serious attempts are made to turn the whole economic system in a capitalist direction so that it will operate in a more efficient manner. “It doesn’t matter if the cat is white or black as long as it catches mice”, to cite Deng Xiaping (e.g. Becker 2000:52-3). While the superiority of capitalism as an economic system and growth machine has fascinated economists for centuries, this has not been the case with sociologists. For sociologists capitalism has mainly been of interest for its social effects – how it has led to class struggle, anomie, inequality and social problems in general. Capitalism as an economic system in its own right has been of much less interest. Some of this reaction has probably to do with the unfortunate division of labor that developed between economists and sociologists in the 19th century: economists studied the economy, and the sociologists society minus the economy. In this respect, as in so many others, sociology has essentially been a “left-over science” (Wirth 1948). 1 For inspiration to write this chapter I thank Victor Nee and for comments and help with information Mabel Berezin, Patrik Aspers, Filippo Barbera, Mark Chavez, Philippe Steiner and two anonymous reviewers.
    [Show full text]
  • El Eterno Retorno De La Asabiyyah. Ibn Jaldún Y La Teología Política Contemporánea
    Daimon. Revista Internacional de Filosofía, nº 76, 2019, pp. 139-153 ISSN: 1130-0507 (papel) y 1989-4651 (electrónico) http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/daimon/281091 El eterno retorno de la Asabiyyah. Ibn Jaldún y la teología política contemporánea The eternal return of the Asabiyyah. Ibn Khaldun and contemporary political theology GIOVANNI PATRIARCA* Resumen: Los profundos cambios geopolíticos Abstract: The geopolitical changes of recent de las últimas décadas, el papel destabilizador de decades, the consequences of the “Arab Spring”, las “primaveras árabes”, el proceso en curso de the ongoing process of rearrangement in the reestructuración del Oriente Medio han desviado Middle East have diverted public attention la atención general hacia el pensamiento político towards Islamic political thought. In a context islámico. En un contexto de crisis y desorienta- of crisis and confusion, the concept of asabiyyah ción, el concepto de la asabiyyah y una lectura and a contemporary reading of the philosophy of contemporánea de la filosofía de Ibn Jaldún son Ibn Khaldun play a significant role in the name fundamentales en el nombre de una interpretación of a modern interpretation of classical political moderna de la teología política clásica. theology. Palabras claves: Ciencia política, Historia de la Keywords: Political Science, Islamic Philosophy, filosofía islámica, Historia del pensamiento eco- History of Economic Thought, Comparative Phi- nómico, Filosofía de la historia, Filosofía compa- losophy, Political Theology. rada, Teología política. Introducción El valor ambivalente de las “primaveras árabes” —con su papel desestabilizador en todo el mundo islámico1— ha dado vida a procesos de reforma y contrarreforma, provocando una serie interminable de luchas internas en el intento de una “reformulación democrática” de la sociedad2.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Critical Sociology and Political Economy of Public Finance
    TOWARDS A CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PUBLIC FINANCE A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY CEYHUN GÜRKAN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY SEPTEMBER 2010 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Ayşe Saktanber Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Ahmet H. Köse Prof. Dr. H. Ünal Nalbantoğlu Co-Supervisor Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. H. Ünal Nalbantoğlu Prof. Dr. Ahmet H. Köse Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sibel Kalaycıoğlu Assist. Prof. Dr. Galip Yalman Assist. Prof. Dr. Nilgün Erdem I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : Signature : iii ABSTRACT TOWARDS A CRITICAL SOCIOLOGY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PUBLIC FINANCE Gürkan, Ceyhun Ph.D., Department of Sociology Supervisor : Prof. Dr. Hasan Ünal Nalbantoğlu Co-Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ahmet Haşim Köse September 2010, 305 pages The exploration of this thesis on public finance proceeds on two axes.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2007) Page 2
    VVVooolll... 666 ||| IIIsss... 333 ||| SSSuuummmmmmeeerrr 222000000777 AAccccoouunnttss AASSAA Eccoonnoommiicc Soocciioollooggyy Seeccttiioonn Neewwsslleetttteerr What’s in this issue? Welcome to the pre-ASA issue of Accounts! Crossing Disciplinary We hope that this issue of Accounts finds you well and enjoying both a restful and produc- Boundaries: tive summer. Feminist Economics and ES In this issue, we are pleased to continue a central discussion from previous newsletters— (Julie Nelson)……...……… 2 how economic sociologists jump over disciplinary fences and interact with other social sci- ence disciplines. In the first article, feminist economist, Julie Nelson, makes economic sociol- Economic Sociology Meets ogy’s criticism of economics look timid as she argues for incorporating feminist insights into Science and Technology our definition of economy. She argues that economic sociology shares too tight a connection Studies (Trevor Pinch)……..3 with neoclassical economics in terms of the subject matter on which it focuses. Next, Trevor Fiscal Sociology Conference Pinch calls for exploring the common ground between economic sociology and science and at Northwestern (Martin, technology studies. By sharing his research on synthesizers, Pinch makes clear how the two Mehrotra, and Prasad) …......4 fields need each other to shed light on both the material and social aspects underlying techno- Econ Soc at the World Bank: logical processes. Third, Isaac Martin, Ajay Mehrotra, and Monica Prasad report on a recent an Interview with Dr. Michael conference on fiscal sociology they helped put together at Northwestern. Fiscal sociology Woolcock (Chris Yenkey) …5 itself is composed of an array of social sciences—sociology, economics, anthropology, politi- cal science, history, and law.
    [Show full text]
  • UNCORRECTED PROOF Original Article Explaining the Anti-Soviet Revolutions by State Breakdown Theory and Geopolitical Theory
    QUERY FORM Journal IP Manuscript ID Collins [Art. Id: ip201115] PLEASE NOTE THAT UNLESS WE HAVE RECEIVED A SIGNED COPYRIGHT FORM FROM THE AUTHOR, WE WILL BE UNABLE TO PUBLISH THIS ARTICLE Papers published via advance online publication (AOP) are fully citable using the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) system and the publication date. For example, per the IP style guide: Thorup, M. ,(2010) Cosmopolitanism: Sovereignty denied or sovereignty restated?. International Politics, advance online publication November 30, doi: 10.1057/ip.2010.30 Author :- The following queries have arisen during the editing of your manuscript. Please answer queries by making the requisite corrections at the appropriate positions in the text and acknowledge that a response has been provided in ‘Response’ column. Query Description Response No. Q1 Do you wish us to remove your email address from the correspondence details that appear on this proof? If you would like it to be retained, please be aware that it cannot be removed at a later stage. Please note that your paper will publish online and your email address will be visible to anyone accessing it on the journal website. Do you wish us to remove your email address? Yes/ No. Q2 Please confirm whether the insertion of the heading ‘Introduction’ is ok. Q3 Please confirm change of McAdam et al, 2001 to McAdam et al, 2000 as per reference list. Q4 Please confirm change of Collins, 1986 to Collins, 1980 as per reference list. UNCORRECTEDQ5 Please confirm change of Brooks and Wohlforth PROOF 2000/2001 to Brooks and Wolhforth, 2000/2001 as per reference list.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Sociology and Veblen's Critique of Capitalism: Insights for Social
    ISSN: 1305-5577 DOI: 10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2020.01.17 Sosyoekonomi RESEARCH Date Submitted: 23.02.2019 ARTICLE Date Revised: 01.10.2019 2020, Vol. 28(43), 295-311 Date Accepted: 20.01.2020 Fiscal Sociology and Veblen’s Critique of Capitalism: Insights for Social Economics and the 2008 Crisis Ceyhun GÜRKAN (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8048-7175), Department of Public Finance, Ankara University, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected] Mali Sosyoloji ve Veblen’in Kapitalizm Eleştirisi: Sosyal İktisat ve 2008 Krizi için Düşünceler Abstract The purpose of this paper is to review fiscal sociology and Veblen’s critique of capitalism with an eye to developing new insights for social economics and the 2008 crisis. The paper adopts an interdisciplinary approach that blends history, political economy, politics, sociology, social philosophy, and ethics. The article demonstrates how old and new strands of fiscal sociology and Veblen’s economic sociology can be employed to develop a comprehensive understanding of history, present conditions and future of neoliberalism as well as its current crisis. The paper concludes that fiscal sociology and Veblen’s sociological and critical institutional economics have the great potential to develop new insights into critical social economics and the fiscal crisis of the state. Keywords : Fiscal Sociology, Veblen, 2008 Crisis, Capitalism, Neoliberalism. JEL Classification Codes : A14, B15, H00, Z1. Öz Bu yazı sosyal iktisada ve 2008 krizine dair yeni düşünceler geliştirmek üzere mali sosyolojiyi ve Veblen’in kapitalizm eleştirisini gözden geçirmektedir. Yazı tarihi, politik iktisadı, siyaset bilimini, toplumsal felsefeyi ve etiği harmanlayan disiplinlerarası bir yaklaşım benimsemektedir. Yazı mali sosyolojinin eski ve yeni tarzları ile Veblen’in iktisat sosyolojisinin neoliberalizmin tarihini, bugünkü koşullarını ve geleceğini ve ayrıca krizini anlamada nasıl kullanılabileceğinin yolunu göstermektedir.
    [Show full text]